my expectations of the different classes ( what shoud a class do ? )

The best way to balance a class is to create a clear table so that you can know what a class should be able to do and what not or not well.

Various forums have already asked what kind of class you would like to play, but the explanation of why you play this class was too imprecise for me. what do you think about this

I have created a tab. below with the essential aspects of a fight and entered the strengths and weaknesses as i would find them in a game. do you share my views?

Main Aspekts ( my opinion ) are :

+ Very weak /noting
+ + Weak
+ ++ Good
+ +++ Very good
+ ++++ excellent

///// DPS // Tank // Heal // CC // Mobility // Range // Buffs

Bard : ++ /// ++ /// +++ /// ++ // +++ /// ++++ // +++++

Cleric: ++ /// ++ /// +++++ / + /// ++ /// ++++ /// ++

Fighter ++++ / +++ // + /// ++ /// ++++ /// + /// ++

Mage ++++ / ++ // + /// ++++ /// +++ /// ++++ /// ++

Ranger ++++ / ++ /// + /// ++ // ++++ /// +++++ /// ++

Rogue +++++ / ++ /// + /// ++ // +++++ // + /// +

Summoner +++ / +++ /// ++ /// +++ // ++ /+++ // +++

Tank +++ // +++++ / ++ // +++++ /// + /// + ///+

I apologize for the not so clear table, there was no other way: D

This does not include the 2nd class that should give a class additional values.
I have also not allowed the special features of the classes to flow into the table.

would you support the table like this? do you think something is too weak? What is your opinion ?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Sathrago

Patsold wrote: »

I apologize for the not so clear table, there was no other way: D

Well, you could probably make it easier on the eyes using excel or even paint with a bar graph instead of this. it kinda hurts my eyes O_O

Dygz

I think it's way to early to think about it any meaningful way.

Nagash

Reminds me of morse code

Patsold

Dygz wrote: »

I think it's way to early to think about it any meaningful way.

Right now you should know roughly what a class should be able to do and what not.

Patsold

Nagash wrote: »

Reminds me of morse code

I got it, but come back to "what should a class be able to do" again. what do you all mean ?

Nagash

Well we only have info on some of the classes on others we have nothing so its impractical to say anything

Patsold

Nagash wrote: »

Well we only have info on some of the classes on others we have nothing so its impractical to say anything

It's not about what we know so far, it's about what a class should be able to do in the game. should a fighter have high mobility instead of more CC? should a rough not have the highest DPS but more mobility?

to put it simply, which job should which class have on the battlefield. and how good can he make his job ?

Eathan

Secondary classes will not have impact on base stats btw, and the second classes only offer augments for your primary archetype.

Patsold

Eathan wrote: »

Secondary classes will not have impact on base stats btw, and the second classes only offer augments for your primary archetype.

That's right, that's why it is important what kind of "base" you use.

Since there are only "changed" skills, there is also an advantage.
A popular example was the one with the fighter, instead of jumping to the enemy, you teleport yourself. this gives the class additional mobility, for example.

To my list. A fighter has ++++ on Mobility and with mage as the sec archeclass this increases to +++++

I am slowly starting to believe that many people here only have dreams of their class. but don't keep balancing in mind. and balancing is what makes a game fun.

maouw

Here's the excel version:

I would prefer no healing on tanks, and make rogues extra squishy, with a bit of lifesteal.

Noaani

So, I disagree with the very notion of this thread, as well as some specifics within it.

First of all, the OP has put rogues as the only top level DPS class - which I think is bad.

Second, the OP has all classes at having at least 2/5ths the tanking ability of a tank - which I think is bad.

Third, the OP has almost no CC between the two support classes - which I think is bad.

Fourth, the OP has the highest DPS class also being the highest mobility class - which I think is bad.

All up, I just think it is bad.

Dygz

Patsold wrote: »

Right now you should know roughly what a class should be able to do and what not.

We should know, but we don't know.

We only know about 10% of half the primary archetypes. If that much.

I have a feeling your expectation for Cleric DPS is low because in Ashes Clerics deal more damage while healing than in typical Western MMORPGs, according to what Steven has said.

Dygz

maouw wrote: »

Here's the excel version:

The Excel version does make the chart easier to evaluate. Thanks, maouw!!!

So...from D&D, I tend to think of Rangers as Healers, typically with high Dex which, I guess translates into DPS and Mobility in this chart. In 3E, I could use Cure Light Wounds, Cure Moderate Wounds and Cure Serious Wounds.
When I look at the chart, I'd want to move Heal up from 1 to 2. But, where would redistribute it from?

I notice Ranger has 20 pips, while Bard has 21 pips. Tank has 18 pips. Rogue has 17 pips.
If we are supposed to be balancing, shouldn't all the Archetypes have the same total number of pips to allocate?
If not, why not?

Still, my issue is, I don't know if my vision of a Ranger is the same as Steven's vision of a Ranger.
Steven's vision of a Cleric seems to be closer to the D&D (Pathfinder?) version of a Cleric than the EQ or WoW vision of a Cleric.
I just don't enough of what Steven's vision is for these classes and how they might differ from the norm.

maouw

I like the idea of Rangers have a bit of heal - plays into the idea of them being resourceful with herbs etc.

It might be ok for non-equal total pips, because these categories aren't equal (e.g. it's hard to say 5 pips on mobility is equal to 5 pips on tankiness).

I agree with Noaani that the tankiness is a bit too uniform between all the classes, but I wouldn't hate on it as hard as he does. I think OP did a pretty great job overall.

My concern is that both the healing and tanking category are quite specialized, so it might be a good idea to bump some other classes in those categories.

Dygz

It might be OK for non-equal pips.
But, if we're talking about balance - especially if we're trying to anticipate what the Ashes devs consider balanced...you can't just not give them the same number of pips without offering any rationale and expect any analysis to be meaningful.

Summoner is supposed to be jack-of-all-trades in Ashes, so I would probably put an even 3 across all the categories - if I could have 21 pips. But there's only 19 available. Why?

Saedu

I think this sort of analysis is a bit flawed. Given talent choices, gear, augments, and secondary class, we will see variability for each class in each category. What we don't know yet is how much that variability will be. Hopefully it's a lot so we can have more variety/playstyles for each role and more options for a each class.

Patsold

maouw wrote: »

Here's the excel version:

I would prefer no healing on tanks, and make rogues extra squishy, with a bit of lifesteal.

Thx to @maouw ,your a god !

First of all ,I just want to show what kind of class can be specified in which field. i dont count the pips because i want to reflect the strength of the class in which area. in addition, the table does not reflect something like that:

Camouflage, Revive, AoE abilities, Gapcloser ect. because it is difficult to put something like that in a good relationship in a list.

So the Mage have maby the best and easyest way to do DPS in a group fight because he have a good kit of aoe skills. the Ranger have the best dps on singeltarget at range . and the rogue have the best dps in game , if he can get in range.

Dont forget you can have a Archeclass , thats not the final Balance for me
at the end your archeclass let you have the same amount of pips like the other classes. EDIT: Or get your ability to a master lvl of 6 pips , that cost you some other points.

so for me a rogue is one of the top dps. why?
it will be much harder to get into close combat range in a group fight. and because rogue for me are small glass cannons, they have disadvantages to distribute damage because of their small range and life, i find it justified.

thats why i will discuss here, what shoud a class be abel to do and what not? If a ranger do the same dps on a target much easyer then a rogue, why shoud i play a rogue?

Patsold

maouw wrote: »

I like the idea of Rangers have a bit of heal - plays into the idea of them being resourceful with herbs etc.

It might be ok for non-equal total pips, because these categories aren't equal (e.g. it's hard to say 5 pips on mobility is equal to 5 pips on tankiness).

I agree with Noaani that the tankiness is a bit too uniform between all the classes, but I wouldn't hate on it as hard as he does. I think OP did a pretty great job overall.

My concern is that both the healing and tanking category are quite specialized, so it might be a good idea to bump some other classes in those categories.

nice idea , maby a ranger is very hard to get in a grp fight ? is he heals whit herbs , he will be a good flex class into the dps aeria

Thx

winner909098

Patsold wrote: »

maouw wrote: »

Here's the excel version:

"thats why i will discuss here, what shoud a class be abel to do and what not? If a ranger do the same dps on a target much easyer then a rogue, why shoud i play a rogue?"

Stealth. I plan on maining a ranger, and I play a ranger in D&D, but I feel like a rogue's main selling point is stealth. It could actually be easier for the rogue to fight because nobody knows that they're coming unless they pay close attention, which wont often be the case. A ranger has to be seen, and typically the better range that you have means the lower health.

ViBunja

If you haven't read, their abilities Clerics got some annoying CC with high damage and self healing could push them into self healing tanks.

Also Rogues are great at long range attacks, so increase that fucker up.

Child Item